Friday, October 12, 2007

Update

According to the Chronicle, Mike Pressler has filed suit against Duke. [Update, Sun., 9.46am: A copy of the lawsuit is here. It shows that Pressler and Duke entered into their confidential settlement in March 2007--meaning that John Burness' comments to Newsday on April 9, 2007 might have constituted a breach of the settlement. Since, however, the settlement itself is confidential, there's no way to know at this stage.]

[Update, Sat., 10.13pm]: Also, the Chronicle discussion thread has an excellent "deconstruction" of the Piot article (on which I will be posting Monday), including several offerings from DIW commenters.

The journal in which Piot published his piece, Transforming Anthropology, has as its past editor Group of 88 member Lee Baker; its current co-editor is Penn professor Deborah Thomas, who previously taught in Duke’s Cultural Anthropology Department. (Sixty percent of the 2006 cultural anthropology department members signed the Group statement.) The journal describes itself as “the chief publication of the Association of Black Anthropologists.”

I am not sure how Brodhead intends to keep his job much longer or how he can face the public with any sort of pride. Many lawsuits have already been setttled and many more will undoubtly come pouring in. The man is now an official liability to Duke and the best thing he can do for Duke and himself right now is leave...regardless of the level of confidence he has in himself.

When your team stops playing for you in sports, it is time to find a new team to coach. Many at Duke have stopped playing for Brodhead, maybe not all, but enough students, faculty and alumni to warrant him moving on.

**** without seeing the complaint, I'm assuming that the suit alleges that Duke violated the terms of the settlement agreement. but any agreement would have provided a remedy, i.e., notice to the party alleged to have violated the agreement, before a suit could be filed.

The "other suit" to which I referred is the suit by the rest of the Lacrosse players.

Surely one discovery begets another...? Something like the discovery of penicillin, perhaps? Frank Herbert frequently called such information a "key log," referring to the key log that undoes the logjam.

A hunch: a key log has just been moved aside - (probably from within the faculty or staff, I'd guess, someone who was intimidated or threatened, and finally got mad enough to speak up.) Just guessing.

It seems to me that the only way to get to the real truth about what is (and was) happening behind the closed doors of the administration and the nutty professors is through lawsuits. Maybe this sounds like schadenfreude, but I truly hope that all injured parties file suits and pursue them to the end.

I imagine that this new lawsuit is based, in part, on new information developed since the initial settlement.

For example, it was not until after the Nifong disbarrment hearings that it became clear that Brodhead almost certainly knew that the DNA evidence was negative BEFORE he fired Pressler.

At the time Pressler was terminated, it was believed that the DNA evidence was not known to Brodhead until five days afterward. Many lamented that Brodhead "had not waited for the DNA before making his tragically wrong decision on Pressler". We now know that Brodhead went ahead and fired Pressler, for whatever his motivation, even though he had compelling evidence that the lacrosse players were almost certainly innocent.

Yeah, but... but... this is about KC, and the quality of his scholarship, and his lack of collegiality, and not giving the G88 a chance to apologize, and his hooligan bloggers, and...and... this is all KC's fault!

The present Duke administration reminds me of the renters who have a loud, yappy dog. The dog makes a mess everywhere in the yard. The dog dutifully yaps at every passerby and stroller, vanquishing the intruder every time, driving them away, defending the staus quo. Or so the doggie thinks. But they keep on walking past, and the dog keeps on and on and on, yapping and messing.

One day, after the property is thoroughly torn apart by the noisy little dog, the owners of the home drop by and decide to evict the tenants because of the damage the dog's done to the property.

The dog, meanwhile, keeps yapping. As far as the dog is concerned, it has done nothing wrong: it has defended the territory successfully against phantom threats and intruders.

I wonder if this is in any way connected to Professor Coleman's recent disavowal of his committee report and its exoneration of the lacrosse team -- if not a "stunning vindication" then certainly a "no better or worse than other student groups" finding. Coach Pressler may somehow feel that this was a violation of the previous agreement.

Agree with the previous poster that huge leverage exists in that Duke will not want to reveal the specifics of the prior agreement in any discovery associated with the latest filing.

good for coach pressler, I'm confident he has cause or he wouldn't be doing it. He's been a saint through this and really lost the most ( aside from the innocent three) I still can't believe there is anyone who doesn't see the outrageous loss that the four of them have endureed. I hope it's something one of the g88 has done since the agreement, I hope Duke suffers for a long time and Broadhead looses his job. After reading UPI, I'm madder than I was in the beginning, which is saying something since I thought from the beginning they were innocent and it was a frame up. I know kids just like these kids, they would never do what they were accused of . Whoopi didn't go far enough, but put herself out there, which I appreciate. The more the mainstream hears the story, the more people start to understand the travesty that occured in Durham.Go Coach Pressler> best of luck.

Its going to be very interesting to see what the basis in law is for Pressler's lawsuit, especially since he agreed to a settlement with Duke. Did Duke violate their side of the bargin or did Pressler rely on something Duke said that was not materially true when he agreed to the settlement ?

The Duke lawyers claim that Pressler's suit has no merit, maybe not, but if this action makes it to the deposition phase - Duke loses even if they eventually prevail. This could be another two years of embarrassment for Brohead, the Trustees and the University. Lets see if Brodhead survives this one.

A total guess: Pressler's suit may allege that Duke induced Pressler to settle based on a series of negligent or wilful misrepresentations of fact.

Pressler and Don Yaeger's book is entitled It's Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case and the Lives It Shattered

If I remember correctly (I've loaned my copy of the book), when Pressler tells Joe Aleva that the charges are not true, Aleva replies that "It's not about the truth anymore Mike." Did Duke know or should Duke have known more about the truth when it fired Pressler, sending him in search of a job while his family stayed in North Carolina to finish the school year? Pressler's family was an integral part of Duke lacrosse. Duke was their home for many years. Their lives were there. It was all taken away as part of a plan to.....satiate the critics? It is impossible to read It's Not About The Truth" without feeling very sad, even tearful, about what happend to the Presslers as well as to the players and their families.

It is not hard to imagine an employer telling an employee why the employee has to leave. What if the employer gives the employee information the employer knew or should have known was false, and in reliance on that informatin the employee accepted a settlement she otherwise would not have accepted?

There is too much justifiable anger stemming from the - at least initially - completely unforseeable perversion of the criminal justice system in this case I hope those who are able to will choose to walk away from or moderate their anger and help start to create something positive for both communities. Easy to say. Impossible to do? Lawsuits are blunt instruments wielded, at least initially, in public. One can wish for face to face meetings in private, for settlements that respect all concerned, begin to re-establish trust in the criminal justice system and that do not damage Duke or Durham any more. One can also wish for - if it hasn't happend already - some way for Duke to apologize to the Pressler family and for the Pressler's to forgive Duke. Lawyers may be saying "Don't apologize. An apology could be used as evidence against the person who makes it."

"How small of all the human heart endures, that part which laws or kings cause or cure." The law will play a role in re-establishing what was so badly perverted and in correcting what was so poorly handled, but the law alone isn't going to preserve a sense of community.

Wow. Some posters at LS have theroized that Coleman's missive was in anticipation of the Pressler suit. The settlement agreement would likely have a provision that Pressler - or Duke - to serve notice of an alleged violation of the agreement so Coleman would have known of the pending suit when he wrote the Chronicle. I posted the following at LS:

As I blindly prattled on about the agreement and a possible wrongful termination suit, mentioning the strength of the evidence of the Coleman Committee Report for Pressler, it did not even occur to me that Coleman used an attack on KC and Stuart to discredit his own committee's report to serve the interests of Duke against Pressler! The conspiracy is so complex yet so simple with KC and Stuart (already reviled by the admin and faculty at Duke) as the perfect scapegoats. KC and Stuart, shocked like deer caught in headlights by Coleman's missive, drew attention, unwittingly, back to the drinking habits of the lax team by defending their work. Reminding all about the minor negative aspects of the report, i.e., the team's alcohol consumption, serves to the benefit of Duke and the detriment of Pressler in a possible lawsuit. The plan is so Machiavellian in its design that it reveals a level of bad faith at Duke that I, despite all that has transpired, somehow could not bring myself to see. Now the question is who devised such a diabolical plan. Was Coleman the creator or was it Broadhead and he simply enlisted Coleman as his soldier? Or Steel? Or Burness? Who has the cruelest heart and the most cunning mind? While cruelty is not in short supply at Duke, a cunning mind is. My money is on Steel as the party with the cunning and duplicity needed to design such a plan.

**** KC, it has often troubled me that you are attacked by members of the academy, not based on your scholarship, but because of ideas that you articulate. To be specific, YOU are attacked, not your arguments. Now it appears that Coleman willingly sought to disparage you and Stuart to serve the fiscal interests of his university and not because he had a sincere disagreement with representations you and Stuart made as to the report OR because he wanted to aid his colleagues. It is all so disheartening. It somehow seemed less offensive to believe that Coleman reacted to a request from his colleagues who wanted attention deflected away from them and onto you and Stuart.

Again, I don't know how all of this does not exhaust you to the point of wanting to forget all about Duke.

The Herald-Sun of Durham reported Friday night on its website that Pressler's lawsuit alleges the university broke the terms of the confidential settlement when university senior vice president John Burness made disparaging comments about the former coach.

The newspaper reported that the lawsuit asks the state court to void the settlement and hold a trial on Pressler's claim of wrongful termination.

What's wrong with the rational element of the faculty? Won't they rally?

What's wrong with those in the administration who still have a conscience?

What's wrong with someone like Professor Coleman, who now apparently values smooth and lively chit-chat at holiday parties with loons like miriam cooke and her trained seal hubby than sticking to the reality of events that we all know to be true.

What's wrong with someone like Mary D.B.T. Semans? Is she not embarrassed enough yet by her buddy Brodhead? Won't she step up for the sake of her family's university and whisper in this frail poet's ear?

The Herald-Sun of Durham reported Friday night on its Web site that Pressler's lawsuit was filed in state court, alleging the university broke the terms of the confidential settlement when university senior vice president John Burness made disparaging comments about the former coach.

.......over a very rare fist of filet and a good Chianti...LOL!!!...(Thanks Hannibal Lechter!).....

.....I began to realize that KC is in. He is already a made man and there is no going back.

And we are with him. The whole country, in many respects, has been a part of this saga....and now academia is also changed forever.

Not to the extent we might want--right away; however, the layers of the Hoax inside Duke are just beginning to be peeled away.

KC has been a major catalyst. That's why all of the families of the academy are after him.

As with Michael Corleone, there is no going back.

No doubt, this is not what he had planned, but this is who KC is now: The Don.

GIS!

And the Diva wishes to extend some helpful advice to those who would venture into the area of questioning.....(even deliberately misrepresenting!!!).....KC's sterling record and also with regard to his latest accolade for yet another one of his books:

Tread lightly.

When the Diva is done with such contumacious creatures, there will be no reason to save the cannolli.

As has been shown in the last few days, the Gang of 88 ++ and their supporters can not and will not be able to stop stating their bigoted remarks publically. And, as they garner publicity from this continued exposure of their hatred for many of their students, their incompetence as professors at an elite university will be increasingly exposed. Look at how easily the Duke students are dismantling Kasibhatia and Piot assertions in their comments at The Chronicle today. The Duke administration’s strategy to this point (stonewalling and silent settlements) will not work in the future. A social disaster did occur and is still occurring at Duke. It is not the Lacrosse hoax; that only made it public.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. --Former Duke University men's lacrosse coach MikePressler, who resigned under the pressure of allegations that three ofhis players raped a stripper, has filed a lawsuit against the privateDurham university, school officials said Friday.

The lawsuit apparently stems from a financial settlement the schoolreached earlier this year with Pressler, who was the only Dukeofficial to lose a job as the result of a case that ended with theplayers vindicated as innocent victims of a rogue prosecutor. He nowcoaches at Division II Bryant in Rhode Island.

"Mr. Pressler, aided by his attorney, reached a fair and finalfinancial agreement with Duke University in the spring of 2007,"Pamela Bernard, Duke's vice president and general counsel, said in astatement. "We are disappointed that he is now trying to undo thatagreement with an unfounded claim against Duke.

"We will address the matter through the legal process and insist onhonoring our existing agreement."

The Herald-Sun of Durham reported Friday night on its Web site thatPressler's lawsuit was filed in state court, alleging the universitybroke the terms of the confidential settlement when university seniorvice president John Burness made disparaging comments about the formercoach.

The suit said one of the comments was made April 9 in Newsday, whenBurness said the difference between Pressler and current lacrossecoach John Danowski was "night and day." The second comment came inJune, when Burness told The Associated Press "it was essential for theteam to have a change of leadership in order to move forward."

In the same AP article, Burness said "Pressler is an excellent coachand did a great job building the Duke men's lacrosse program." Burnessadded the school regretted the negative consequences of his departure.

Pressler did not return a call seeking comment Friday night, and hisagent declined to comment. The Herald-Sun said the lawsuit asks thecourt to void the settlement and hold a trial on Pressler's claim ofwrongful termination.

Lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans wereindicted last year on charges of rape, kidnapping and sexual offense,after a stripper told police she was raped at a March 2006 partythrown by the lacrosse team. They were later cleared by stateprosecutors, who concluded no crime occurred and found the trio to bethe innocent victims of former Durham County prosecutor Mike Nifong.

Nifong was disbarred for his actions in the lacrosse case. He resignedfrom office and spent a night in jail after a judge held him criminalcontempt of court for his conduct during the case.

In 16 seasons at Duke, Pressler posted 153 wins, three Atlantic CoastConference championships and 10 trips to the NCAA tournament. He wasnamed the U.S. Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association's coach of theyear in 2005.

In June, the three players reached an undisclosed financial settlementwith Duke. Last week, they filed a federal civil rights lawsuitagainst Nifong, the city of Durham and the police detectives whohandled the case, among others.

Former Duke men's lacrosse coach Mike Pressler filed suit against the university this week, alleging that the school violated the terms of a confidential settlement arising from his forced resignation last year.

Pressler and his attorneys allege that Duke violated the agreement by allowing university spokesman John Burness to twice make comments disparaging the former coach.

One of the comments appeared in an April 9 article published in Newsday, a New York newspaper. It quoted Burness as saying that coaches are responsible for the behavior of their teams and that the difference between Pressler and his successor, current lacrosse coach John Danowski, was "night and day."

The other comment appeared in a June 7 Associated Press article and quoted Burness as saying that after the controversy sparked by what proved to be false rape allegations lodged against three team members, a coaching change was essential so the team could move forward.

Pressler's lawsuit -- filed Thursday in state Superior Court in Durham -- alleges that Duke officials have made other defamatory and disparaging comments about him since the March settlement. It asks a judge to void the deal and hold a jury trial on the former coach's wrongful-termination claim.

Duke officials say they will fight.

"Mr. Pressler, aided by his attorney, reached a fair and final financial agreement with Duke University in the spring of 2007," university General Counsel Pamela Bernard said. "We are disappointed that he is now trying to undo that agreement with an unfounded claim against Duke. We will address the matter through the legal process and insist on honoring our existing agreement."

Pressler coached Duke's men's lacrosse from 1990 until his ouster on April 5, 2006.

He lost his job after a stripper accused three of his players of raping her. The allegations were false, and state Attorney General Roy Cooper later exonerated the three players, David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

Pressler has maintained that his ouster -- officially a resignation -- was a public-relations ploy by the university.

He was forced out the same day that Durham court officials released a search warrant targeting another player, Ryan McFadyen, who after last year's ill-fated team party sent team members an e-mail saying they should hold another party, invite strippers and then kill and skin them.

Supporters of the players have said the e-mail was not a threat, but instead a joke based on a Bret Easton Ellis novel called "American Psycho" that was assigned reading in classes taken by several lacrosse players.

But school President Richard Brodhead responded by canceling the team's season, announcing Pressler's ouster and ordering an investigation of the team.

Conducted by a committee co-chaired by Duke Law School professor James Coleman, the investigation subsequently found that the lacrosse team's disciplinary record was "noticeably worse than the records of all other athletic teams" at Duke, although its transgressions were minor and usually alcohol-related.

It was clear that "responsible senior leadership on the part of team captains [was] too often missing," and that players who voiced "deep respect and admiration" for Pressler nonetheless defied him, the committee said.

But Coleman's committee also found that senior administrators in Duke's student affairs and athletic departments did little to warn the coach when players were accused of misconduct. On the few occasions they did, Pressler disciplined his charges. Sanctions often required extra running from players, but occasionally included game suspensions.

Pressler's lawsuit -- filed by Raleigh attorneys Jerome Trehy Jr., Donald Strickland and Jesse Rigsby -- said Duke officials conceded last June that they had ousted him "without cause." The two sides subsequently negotiated a confidential settlement.

News of the deal emerged in June. Burness' comments to AP staff writer Aaron Beard appeared in a story reporting it. The full quote attributed to Burness was, "Coach Pressler is an excellent coach and did a great job building the Duke men's lacrosse program. Unfortunately, last spring it was essential for the team to have a change of leadership in order to move forward."

The Newsday story was an April 9 column by sportswriter Steven Marcus. The full text is no longer available online, but excerpts indicate that Burness told Marcus, "One of the things we certainly have come to understand in this case is that the coaches in general in each of our sports are responsible for the behavior of their teams."

The excerpts also include the "night and day" comparison of Pressler and Danowski.

Pressler's lawyers couldn't be reached for comment. His lawsuit is the second in as many weeks filed in connection with the lacrosse case.

Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann on Oct. 5 filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the city, police, former District Attorney Mike Nifong and two officials with a DNA lab they accuse of conspiring with Nifong to hide exculpatory evidence.

The three players have already reached a confidential settlement with Duke University.

I have always felt that John Burness was a massive liability to Duke University. From jump he has put one foot into his mouth after the other. Left, right, left, right ....

Previously, Burness' nadir was his conspiracy with Holloway to defame the lacrosse team with fifth-hand (and month's old) hearsay about racial slurs that they handed over to Cash Michaels. Now, we may have a new low.

This particular new low, though, relates not to evil machinations, but to unadulterated stupidity. I do not see how Brodhead survives this latest. ___________________

[SPECULATION ALERT] Has Tom Inman joined the "Faculty" at the Duke Chronicle messageboard? LOL! Or, as Debrah would say, "GIS!" MOO! Gregory

Interesting that it might be Burness who ran his mouth and thus invited legal action. If the suit proceeds, he may be forced out - and that might indicate that the next in line above him would be walking, too.

Walking. (Do slugs walk?)

As far as walking goes: looks more like Coleman's walking the plank. I'd thought he was heading for the presidency, but now...

I remember reading Burness' "night and day" comments a while back and thinking that those remarks were borderline defamatory and could get Duke in trouble since its settlement with Pressler almost certainly contained a provision prohibiting Duke from making further public statements critical of Pressler's job performance while at Duke. Apparently Duke's lawyers failed to get that message across to Burness, or else Burness got the message and just decided he could say whatever he wanted. My guess would be the latter, since Burness has always given me the impression that he is an arrogant SOB. In any event, Pressler probably settled for too little $$ and Burness' big mouth may give Pressler the opportunity to take another bite at the big Duke apple. After the sleazy way Duke treated him, I wish him all the luck in the world.

The reporter says "BOTCHED ASSAULT INVESTIGATION" (Where have the news writers for this station been over the past seven months? In a cave?)

Notice the caption under the video with a still photo of Pressler"....after resigning earlier this year under pressure of allegations that three of his players raped a stripper."(Technically, I suppose this is accurate, however it leaves a different impression than the facts that have come out.)

Duke will just through some more money at Pressler. I doubt they would want to go to trial and go through a terribly embarrassing show. Brodhead will keep fund raising to pay off the rest of the Lax team and hire some more PC Profs.

I hope you are being sarcastic, Duke needs to run away from any legal action. The discovery process will turn up all kinds of nasty things not directly related to the Pressler Lawsuit and Pressler's attorney will have a field day with Burness and Brodhead. Think Duke better make a counter offer and fast.

"Apparently Duke's lawyers failed to get that message across to Burness"

I suspect there's bit more to this lawsuit than meets the eye. If Burness made these statements in public you can bet there's additional damaging statements that he has made internally. It would only take one or two emails forwarded to Pressler......

The information about Coach Pressler’s renewed lawsuit is trickling in,and I am hoping more bloggers than ever,are at the ready to seek out the truth. I searched randomly to find articles that illustrated the perception of Coach Pressler,out of the NC area. The“Excessive Drinking” refrain is certainly out there in the MSM reporting. The articles below spoke to the unjustness Coach P. has suffered. Whatever he is awarded,it will not be enough,in my opinion. When I read statements like these,and know they are discussing an innocent man,it makes me heartsick for the Pressler family. I would like to force-feed these bites to the Gang of 88.

Read Bites:

(1) Bringing in Duke coach wasn't easy decision

Oakland Tribune, Jul 11, 2007 by James Leonard STAFF

“The invitation was sent before the scandal involving rape and kidnapping charges against three Duke players surfaced. Pressler was forced to resign, and the national media attention was making it hard for him to find another coaching job.”

"When you have a camp that emphasizes character and gives presentations on character and making the right choices and all that -- yes, that was obviously a concern," Worstell said.

"On three different occasions, I went to see my supervisors and asked them, 'Should I be worried about my job?'" he says. "The words were 'absolutely not.' I was never concerned about my job."

He applied for coaching positions at three universities. But despite a resume that included three Atlantic Coast Conference championships and 10 NCAA tournament appearances, Pressler didn't get a sniff from any of them.

That was the time I was the most bitter and the most angry," he says. "Not only had I lost the job I had adored and coveted my entire life, but my career looked like it was over. ... That was the most depressing of times."

I am a regular reader of Newsday and was very surprised to see those quotes from Burness at the time of publication. Duke breeched the confidential settlement and deserves to pay the price. Burness is an idiot - wait until more lawsuits are filed against the professors who can't keep their mouths shut.

I don't think Pressler would have filed suit again without very good grounds, and I find it extremely believable that big old Burness couldn't stop flapping his jaw. I hope this will at least cause Burness to get the boot! Reminds me of the Book of Esther....Haman...gallows.

While we are waiting for more details, again. I have two questions for anyone. Could the book price listed below be correct? Is that price the going rate?

Oxford University PressI Don't Hate the SouthReflections on Faulkner, Family, and the SouthHouston A. Baker216 pagesPrice:$99.00

Yes and yes.

Academic books are often priced at that level or higher. My second book (best seller at Amazon that it was - rank is over 2 million :) ) is currently priced there at $175.00. When it first came out, it was $90, so close to Baker's.

The reason for the high prices is that the market is small and mostly made up of academic libraries, many of whom buy "subscriptions" to a press's publications in a certain area or series. Libraries are not especially "price sensitive" so that publishers are able to keep prices high. (For you econ-heads, the demand for academic books is highly price-inelastic.)

The thing to remember is that most academic books are written for other academics. Our measure of success is NOT how many books we sell, but how often the book is cited (positively we hope) in work by others. The coin of the realm in science is not sales/profits, but citations/reputation. The result is that libraries buy them so other scholars can have access to them, and price just doesn't matter that much.

A book can sell very well but be an awful piece of scholarship, and great works of scholarship often sell relatively few copies. The true academic superstars who can bridge scholarship and popular appeal are few and far between (Sowell is a good example). (BTW, I do not consider UPI to be a scholarly work of the sort of KC's other books. It surely uses KC's tools as a historian, but it's a popular not a scholarly book. I'd be interested to know what KC thinks - and what category it is in on his CV ;) ).

I should note that the book of mine I linked to was also available at the much more reasonable price of $30 through Laissez-Faire Books when it first came out. I worked with my publisher to negotiate that deal precisely because I thought the book could sell to a broader audience if priced right. And to some extent it did, which is why my embarrassing Amazon rank is a little bit deceiving. (The book also won a book prize in 2001, so sales and scholarly acclaim once again need not align.)

Yes, resting one's success on citations/reputation opens up the possibility of the citation circle-jerk we've talked about before. That's one of the risks of the scholarly process. But there are ways of determining whether a scholar's citations and reputations are just coming from his/her friends or from people outside their circle. This, btw, is one of the "positives" of a critical citation: if people who disagree with you have to take your work seriously and feel the need to criticize it, you are probably doing good work.

Agree, Anon 10:48am, that Tortmaster (Gregory/MOO)'s discussion of the listening statement is an example of the usefulness of literary deconstruction. With these skills, he'd be a genuine credit to the lit-crit faculty at a place like Duke.

Boston: Coach Pressler(...shunned him like a pariah with a contagious disease...}

The Boston GlobeNew school, old woundsNow at Bryant, ex-Duke lacrosse coach still grapples with scandal's fallout

By Jackie MacMullan, Globe Columnist | March 20, 2007

Read Bites:

SMITHFIELD, R.I. -- During the most harrowing moments, when the hateful, threatening signs cropped up on his lawn under the cover of darkness, when the anonymous e-mails mentioning his children by name were delivered to him, when a university that once embraced him warmly suddenly shunned him like a pariah with a contagious disease, former Duke lacrosse coach Mike Pressler laced up his sneakers and walked it off."One day, I walked 10 miles," Pressler said. "All by myself, through the Duke forest. It's a beautiful place.”

He paused, his face creased with sorrow and resignation."We just sold our home there."

People said, 'Coach, take a couple of years off.' My reaction was, 'No way.' "

Pressler continues to counsel players -- both those accused and those caught in the crossfire. The psychological damage they've suffered, he said, makes him physically ill.

(BTW, I do not consider UPI to be a scholarly work of the sort of KC's other books. It surely uses KC's tools as a historian, but it's a popular not a scholarly book. I'd be interested to know what KC thinks - and what category it is in on his CV ;) ).

I agree with Annonymous 10:48. The Tortmaster's analysis of the oddly named "Listening Statement" is superb - well worth reading. If you take the time to read it, spend some extra time reading The Chronicle. It is excellent.

The Boston GlobeNew school, old woundsNow at Bryant, ex-Duke lacrosse coach still grapples with scandal's fallout

By Jackie MacMullan, Globe Columnist | March 20, 2007

Read Bites:

Sue Pressler is asked what this ordeal has done to her husband. She paused so long that the question was repeated to her. "I'm sorry," she said, choking back tears. "I'm trying to get myself together. "The first word that pops into my head is 'sad.' Mike's been sad from the beginning. Not about the tangible stuff, like losing his job, or having his reputation questioned.

"The sad part is his kids were taken away from him, and he was taken away from them."If you have ever coached, or coached like he does, you'd understand this isn't just a job to him. It wasn't just about the four years he had with a player. It was about the weddings, the new babies, the funerals. He invested in their lives. Our whole family did.”http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2007/03/20/new_school_old_wounds/?page=3

Hmmmm, can you explain? I'm trying to keep track of all the evidence, but I don't know of evidence showing or suggesting that Brodhead had the results of the DNA evidence when he fired Pressler. Can you explain?

I believe 3:28 am was being sarcastic - referring to statements made that the lax players would have the opportunity to 'prove their innocence in court' and to those who wondered why the lax players needed lawyers if they were innocent.

On my CV, I just have a listing for "books"--I only have a separate listing for blog writings and op-eds.

But no, I don't consider it a scholarly book, at least of the type of my other books. All of those came out with academic presses; all had footnotes (UPI has sourcenotes); and all are very much document-based (UPI, of necessity, relies in part on lots of interviews).

That said, one thing of which both Stuart and I were conscious: to be taken seriously by anyone in the academy, the book needed comprehensive sourcenotes, which I made sure it had.

Coach K is more widely known, but Mike Pressler was the best coach that Duke had. Thanks to Traveler for reminding us with his posts of 11:30 am and 1:05 pm. Coach Pressler was made a sacrificial lamb, and, I believe, the players were deprived of 2 national championships -- in the name of protecting Duke's reputation. Look at the sorry mess the feckless administration and reckless faculty have created. A plague on both their houses. Duke's reputation is now in free-fall.

To Stephen HorwitzI thank you for your information about academic publishing. It does not make perfect sense to me, but I did understand how things work. Recently I posted an article from The Carnegie Legal Reporting Program@Newhouse

Lawbeat Comments: (Re: D-I-W)“Because of his energy (relentlessness, really) and talent, Johnson proves that citizen journalism can in fact be journalism as we dinosaurs would define it.”

Is he saying D-I-W, a blog, is scholarly journalism? How do “dinosaurs” define journalism? What defines citizen journalism? I can’t understand his point. I would appreciate your opinion.

My reading of that comment is just that "real" journalists use facts and evidence and dig deep, while the commenter assumes that "citizen journalists" are the famed "bloggers in pajamas" most of the time, just spouting off.

What he's saying is that KC showed that you don't need to be a "professional" journalist to engage in really good journalism.

Do note my sarcastic quotes, suggesting that it's not clear at all that "professional" journalists do what they are supposed to.

I believe I committed a junior blogging sin by not noting that I had first posted the "Listening ad" material on acephalous.typepad.com. My mistake, I apologize. I will go to the Chronicle site and put the "citation" on that thread as well. ___________________

I did not write the "Faculty" posts on the Chronicle website. I'm just a big fan.

**** looks around for Inman **** ____________________

I loved everyone's analysis about how the silly folks at Duke brought K.C. Johnson back into this "turf war" (as if he were aa academic "Don"). LOL! GIS! If they could have waited even another week, K.C. probably would have been so busy he couldn't have responded. These people cannot think strategically, tactically, logically, coherently, even holistically. MOO! Gregory

You mean two MORE years of embarassment. How much more can they endure. Only time, and discovery, will tell. Go for it Mike. Maybe two problems can be solved at once. The three persecuted LAX players can take out Duhmb and Coach can take out the Dookies. That's a win0win situation.

Here is an excerpt from the Piot article to which KC refers to above. As you will see, Prof. Piot interprets the Listening Statement a bit differently than Tortmaster. Tortmaster and Prof. Piot agree that the timing of the Listening ad was not a coincidence. Beyond that they take different approaches to interpreting the Gang of 88's ad. For example, Prof. Piort believes that Hurricane Katrina influenced the Gang of 88's ad whereas Tortmaster makes no mention of it. Here is the excerpt:

And yet the ad in question was neither about thelacrosse players nor about the party they hosted in spring 2006. It quoted eleven students, all African American,in an attempt to give voice to their experiences of racism and sexism at Duke—around the time of the case itself, and beyond. The ad grew out of a teach-in organized byfaculty in Duke’s (then) Program in African and African American Studies during which students of color told stories about their experiences of racism and sexism at Duke—and this at a time of heightened racial tensions on campus and significant backlash against students ofcolor.2 Certainly the lacrosse incident was the trigger for the ad (and a few of the students quoted in the ad referred to the event), but the ad was never about that incident or about the guilt of the players. The ad’s title—“What Doesa Social Disaster Sound Like?”—drew on analyses of the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina to suggest that events such as these have social roots and ramifications beyond the events themselves. Moreover, to expect thatDuke faculty would not comment on the racializedatmosphere on campus at the time would have been, as one student put it in spring 2007 at a faculty–student forum on the events of the previous spring, “irresponsible.”“African and African American Studies faculty,” shesaid, “were hired precisely because they studyrace, gender, and class in society today. I would have been disappointed if they had remained silent at a time like this.”

Prof. Piot's entire article can be found here:http://fds.duke.edu/db?attachment-17--1263-view-347

KC - Way down in the notes of Piot's article he claims you supported cancelling the season.

NOTES1. Johnson also supported canceling the season:“Duke’s president, Richard Brodhead . . . quite appropriately,it seems to me—suspended and then cancelledthe lacrosse season; based on the most benigninterpretations of their actions, many of the lacrosseplayers were guilty of conduct unbecoming universitystudents and gravely embarrassing the school” (DIW,April 16, 2006).2. A triggering event occurred on March 31,

Gregory impugns me @ 4:51 and before, speculatively yes, but in fact nonetheless. I am a dupe. Satire alerts after the fact do not assuage my so hurt feelings, feelings born of so many times when I believed the truth and the truth was, well, simply "Nifonged."

So seppeku awaits me. I shall delay the inevitable slice until the '88 apologize. For my shame does not approach their shame.

Very fine work on the Chronicle blog. You could probably decipher "The Wasteland" better than most profs, if you were to sink your teeth into that work.

::::::::::::::::

As much as I suspect that there is a battle brewing inside of Duke, I fear that this would be the best thing that could happen to Duke: a civil war - (it's already uncivil.) Right now, the operative word on Duke is "smoldering." Smoldering fires stink the worst.

I've seen social organizations (arts centers, for example) that made critical decisions which eventually destroyed them. In one such case, volunteers were cast aside in favor of professional staff, and the center eventually died and was turned into a hospital parking lot. No more arts center. It took twenty years for the acquired immune disease to kill the patient, but it died. Bad decisions can take years to become evident.

It took RMWC years to die, but the bad blood - similar to the 88ers' - finally caught up with them. They literally could not give the education away cheap enough to both attract students and to survive as an institution. Now they're selling off their cherished art, piece-by-piece. They have no choice: decisions and politics from the last decade of leadership gave the school - (like the arts center) - a slow-growing, fatal illness.

Duke will either deal with it now,or it will deal with it the same way RMWC has: RMWC is now "Randolph College." RMWC is dead.

Perhaps that is really what the 88 want, after all: the death of the institution.

A civil war is not so unthinkable, when you ponder the potential for a slow death for Duke. It may already have contracted a fatal illness, no remedy sufficient to save it. A civil war, in Duke's case, is like a risky operation to remove a lethal brain tumor.

I find the tender feelings of the Professor almost amusing. Nobody likes to be called names or stereotyped. This dispute arose because three Duke students were threatened, charged with openly false allegations, and ridiculted in a stereotyped manner. So, in response to this outrage, Professors decide that public debate insults their feelings.

Absurd. I abhor vile racist emails sent to Professors, or anybody. But, equally so, I abhor a racist effort to put away three duke students.

Professor, the reason alums are so angry at the faculty is they simply refused and refuse to acknowledge facts inconsistent with a fabricated narrative, expressed in the listening statement

Let me add my own thoughts on academic publishing, following up the remarks of Steven Horowitz and our host, KC Johnson. As KC Johnson notes, UPI is not from an academic press. However, it should be noted that academics have had no problems enthusiastically endorsing books by their fellow academics from trade publishers. Michael Bellesiles _Arming America_ comes to mind. Most of the enthusiastic reviewers soon discovered that _Arming America was, quite simply, not worth the powder and lead to bow it to Hell. Unfortunately, it was not the academics who initially led the charge, but people who had differing political agendas than the author or many of his academic colleagues. However, the weight of academics like law professor James Lindgren soon showed that the critics were correct. This does not mean that all books published by trade publishers are suspect. Far from it. Johnson and Taylor are in good company, with fellow academics like Todd Gitlen publishing outside the academic press system. This is especially helpful if the intent is to reach a wide audience.

A lot of academic publishing (read: printed by the University of XYZ Press) is really aimed only at the author's fellow academics, and not to a general audience. Not surprisingly, this means often the author receives the letter or phone call from the press, asking how many boxes of his book he wants at a discount before they are remaindered. Selling a few hundred is good for many titles. A book aimed at a wider audience, even if published by an academic press, can sell several thousand, and actually make money for the press. Often these deal with subjects of interest to the general public, and are not as enthusiastically received by the author's academic peers, but, it is a peer reviewed publication by a valid academic press.

However, we should note, as regards Professor Piot, that some academic publishing is apparently not up to the same standards as Drs. Johnson and Horowitz. In fact, one of the interesting things about the whole Ward Churchill affair was his publications. Most were from garage presses, the sort of private presses specializing in fringe publishing by avowed anarchists and others, but not known for any sort of peer review process, and certainly not recognized as academic presses at all. EXCEPT insofar as Mr. Churchill's colleagues in Ethnic Studies, who apparently feel that his work was of such high degree that he warranted a hire without a Ph.D., and tenure and promotion to full professor in a very few years. I have heard people in programs of ethnic and gender studies speak enthusiastically about Ward Churchill's scholarship, and his publication record. Well, actual scholars have examined it, and found it wanting. Just as thoughtful readers have examined Professor Piot's article, and found that it is equally flawed. It would be an interesting exercise to examine the writings of members of the 88 signers of the "Listening Ad" and some selected associates to see how well their scholarship actually holds up. My guess is that there will be some which will certainly pass muster - William Chafe's books for example. But, I suspect that there may be a lot more errors in the material accepted for publication in journals that regularly publish articles like Piot's work on the listening ad than you will find in work by scholars like KC Johnson.

This is one of the reasons the Duke case is such a serious one from an academic standpoint. It adds to the evidence of corrupted academic practices in programs where overtly politicized work has replaced strict adherence to actual data and conclusions which can be supported by the evidence cited, which is verifiable by interested critics. Ward Churchill, Michael Bellesiles, and possibly some of the 88 at Duke put ideology ahead of scholarship. This is something which should concern all honest academics.

The AP article (linked by KC) puts Burness' sleazy slurs against Pressler into the somewhat broader context of Burness' sleazy compliments toward Pressler during the same interview.

Burness is, of course, a sleaze. But we knew that. And nobody knows it better than Pressler (as Pressler's book, even better than KC's, makes clear).

I don't think this is a big-money lawsuit. It is Pressler's way of quite properly telling Burness to STFU and quit slandering Pressler if he knows what's good for him.

And it's already having that effect. Normally, Burness would be the designated Duke scumbag to publicly address such a situation. But instead, Duke designated its scumbag lawyer to lie about the situation, since the scumbag lawyer is more fully immunized to tell such lies under the guise of spin.

Bottom line: Shut up and quit slandering Pressler, Burness, or you'll never work again.

It's been 16 years since Texas billionaire Lee Bass gave $20 million to Yale to start a Western civilization program, and 12 years since he took it back. Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus wants to make sure that Mr. Bass's experience is never repeated.

Between 1991 and 1995, Mr. Bass repeatedly sought assurances that his money wouldn't be dumped into multicultural education. He kept asking the university's president, Richard Levin, when the program, which was to include a one-year mandatory course for freshman, would materialize. When it became clear that the liberal faculty's objections to Mr. Bass's gift had won the day, he asked for his money back. And Yale reluctantly complied.

The Robertson family at Princeton has not been so lucky. In 1961, Charles and Marie Robertson (an heiress to the A&P supermarket fortune), donated $35 million to the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University to prepare students for careers in government service. The Robertsons' descendants now claim that the university has diverted the funds to projects completely unrelated to this mission. In 2002, they sued Princeton to reclaim the endowment, now estimated to be nearly $500 million. Five years later, they still haven't gotten a refund.

How can donors be sure that the money they give will go to fund the things they want? Mr. Marcus says it is time to hold administrators' feet to the fire. Along with John M. Templeton Jr. and the John William Pope Foundation, Mr. Marcus has provided the seed money ($5 million) for the Center for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE). The Indianapolis-based center, launched last month, aims to help donors "use philanthropy as a lever to reform higher education," says Frederic Fransen, its executive director. Reform includes a greater emphasis on core curricula, a free-market understanding of economics, a more balanced approach to politics, affordable tuition, tenured faculty who spend more time in the classroom, greater transparency in university governance, and an end to grade inflation.

"For a buck, universities would do anything," Mr. Marcus said in a recent interview. "We are seeing more anti-Western, anti-Israel and anti-democracy sentiment on campus" these days, he observed, adding wryly, "The Saudis are paying an enormous amount of money for that." Mr. Marcus would like to compete. He has found, unfortunately, that the universities are generally hostile to the economic and political system that has allowed businessmen like him to thrive. "My success in life is because of free enterprise," he says. But "colleges don't teach this." And the tales of Mr. Bass and the Robertsons give Mr. Marcus and his cohort pause.

University administrations have often ignored "donor intent" when spending the proceeds from a particular gift. And thanks to an antiquated hiring system and a faculty that will scream "infringement on academic freedom" any time an outsider tries to exert some influence, the problems in higher education have become entrenched.

There are donors with the money to get around these problems -- to create entirely new schools or departments within a university. But how do you get a university to agree to, say, starting a separate school devoted to the study of free enterprise? And make sure they'll stick to the plan once they cash your check? CEHE will help donors (free of charge) craft contracts with universities to ensure their money is used properly. It will also perform due diligence on these gifts once the agreement is complete.

Mr. Marcus, who has given tens of millions to universities including Georgia Tech and Emory, emphasizes that the restrictions on gifts "must be reasonable." He expects that the universities will resist, but that they'll quickly change their tune if a donor threatens to take his business somewhere else.

CEHE will offer a way for philanthropists to do just that. If a donor has, say, $10 million to give for a particular purpose, he can ask the center to sponsor a contest among three or four different schools, each submitting a proposal detailing how the money would be spent. "Competition tends to have the impact of bringing out the best," says Dr. Templeton, of the Templeton Foundation, which regularly runs such contests. Starting next year, CEHE will manage contests in the areas of military history and strategy, Middle East studies, entrepreneurship and business history, and the principles of the American founding.

Within five years, the center's leaders expect that it will be helping to control at least $200 million worth of donations, and within 10 years, perhaps, as much as $1.5 billion. Of course even that amount is only 3% of the market share in higher education philanthropy.

Mr. Fransen is aware of the center's limitations. "Giving to Harvard doesn't do any good. You can't change them no matter how big your gift." He hopes CEHE can influence the top colleges and universities, but he also notes that it may be second-tier institutions that are "hungrier" and willing to work harder for the money. Indeed, if the center succeeds, it won't just be students who learn more about the free market.

Regarding the writings of Charles Piot, and Dr. Kasibhatla's support of them, I find myself much more troubled than by Dr. Coleman's decision to lash out at Johnson and Taylor. Disappointing as it may be, I can give Dr. Coleman the benefit of the doubt as a sincere man who is trying to prevent his university from being clobbered by the oncoming litigation. I do not agree with his recent interpretation of events, or his recent analysis of UPI, but, he is a lawyer, and he may be thinking in terms of protecting his institution's legal interests.

But then there is Dr. Kasibhatla, a man with a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. This is not a field where I would expect one to be loose with empirical data, and a field where one would expect faculty to be driven by data more than personal politics. So I find it much more curious that Dr. Kasibhatla would argue that Charles Piot's article was a solid refutation of Johnson andTaylor's assessment of the "Listening Ad." Especially after so many people have clearly demonstrated the intellectual and factual fallacies which are legion in the "Listening Ad," and the "Clarifying Statement." This comes across much like the interpretation of evolution offered by people who call themselves creation scientist, or who argue for intelligent design. Or, perhaps, is Dr. Kasibhatla taking a page from Lysenko's approach to agricultural science, promising Comrade Stalin that farm yields will meet the five year plan - and doing so by cooking the books? I don't know, and I would be happy to have Dr. Kasibhatla answer the questions students have posed on the Duke Chrnoicle site. However, I am not anticipating answers that would address my concerns. Dr. Kasibhatla seems to be unwilling to address direct questions.

At the Duke Chronicle discussion thread, our own Gregory has posted a most amazing analysis of the "Listening Ad." It is lenghty but absolutely excellent in its "KC Johnsonian" thoroughness and accuracy. You can read it at the Chronicle site and I have posted it at my site here:MOO! Gregory Parses the "Listening Ad"

On a transcontinental flight, Gregory was seated next to Walter Mitty. As the plane buffeted and bounced, Gregory turned to Mitty, saying, "You may think that sound is 'the rat-tat-tatting of machine guns,' or 'the menacing pocketa-pocketa-pocketa of the new flame-throwers,' but it is merely turbulence ... my opinion only," Fear of Flying Chapter 7, page 148. Smith & Kerns Publishing (1988)

Dr. Prasad Kasibhatla is of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke. Apparently a highly esteemed professor. Rememeber his political parsing of facts in the Duke LAX brouhaha the next time you are asked to accept the "overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion" about the equally political discussion of global warming. Just saying.

How can councilman and mayoral candidate Thomas Stith criticize Mayor Bill Bell's performance following the Duke lacrosse accusations in the spring of 2006? This was a stellar example of the leadership skills Bell has shown for over 30 years in elective office in Durham.

The national press descended like locusts on our city. Reporters looked for inflammatory quotes from self-serving politicians. Everyone waited for another shoe to drop -- and for someone to come forth as a leader. Bell was the voice of calm and reason. He refused to play the race card, refused to stir up ancient animosities, refused to indulge in the kind of negative rabble-rousing that characterizes Stith's campaign for office. Bell calmed this city with his steady, unflappable demeanor, and he defended both Duke and Durham eloquently in the national media.

Wisely, the mayor met with the police chief and others who could help resolve this volatile situation. And of course Duke administrators turned to the mayor to help bring resolution. Of all the leaders in this community, none is more responsible for Durham's progress over the past 30 years than Bill Bell. In his long tenure as chair of the county commission and now as mayor, he has led with great wisdom and often with great courage. In the lacrosse situation, though, he had perhaps his finest hour.

Those who might still try to claim that the "We Are Listening" ad was actually not about the Lax case are wasting their time. They are also destroying whatever might remain of their believability. Coach Pressler should not have been fired. That decision cannot be defended in the light of day. Given the high profile nature of this case, Duke is going to bleed all over the ground for having done so. After what they did, Duke (and Durham) are defenseless and undeserving of mercy. Too bad... This is what you get from a guy who types real slow with one finger and who does not get paid by the word.

A note: Liberty University is getting more and more donations from people who understand that they aren't about to sell out. Many readers of DIW - (and KC, very likely) - may not appreciate Liberty's Christian perspective, but they're definitely a free-market institution, with an eye toward gaining excellence. The Law Library is said to be excellent, and many other programs are maturing.

I promise you these things: with enough time and money, Liberty will be a stellar institution; with the way Duke and Harvard and others have embraced the extreme left, Liberty will be the recipient of vast funds that will enable it to become a stellar institution, and Liberty will attract better and better professors, students (and athletes) as the Ward Churchills and the Wahneema Lubianos of the eductational world have their way.

(I am not going to argue about the particulars of Liberty University, BTW.)

Fact is, they've gotten a lot of sizeable donations, and if I were a big-time giver, I'd likewise put my money where it wasn't going to be used against my enterprise.

Why is it a surprise to anyone that Piot's little piece, Transforming Anthropology, was published in a journal which "describes itself as 'the chief publication of the Association of Black Anthropologists' " ?

Technorati kcjohnson9: 5,315 blog reactions Everything in the known universe about Durham-in-Wonderlandhttp://technorati.com/blogs/durhamwonderland.blogspot.com

Comment: ORACULATIONS [howard432]

” At Duke---and everywhere else---we have useless departments staffed by agenda driven incompetents. The sorry truth is that these incompetents have Ph.Ds in specialties with no right to exist: feminist studies (how many of the "88" are from this department?), anything to do with "La Raza," urban studies and so on. It comes as no surprise that the curriculum in these empty "specialties" is composed of "victimization" subjects and purposes.”http://technorati.com/blogs/oraculations.blogspot.com

First, I have to say that I was surprised to discover that the article was coherent. I hadn't expected this, given the wild ravings and the grammar problems common to Group of 88 members.

Unfortunately, Piot's article starts off with a transparent lie... that the listening statement was not a response to the lacrosse case. I continued to read the entire article, even though this initial lie made the rest seem forced and pointless.

Piot points to a history of racism at Duke as the reason for the listening statement, but he offers no evidence. Well... he points to statements by commenters on this board as just about the only evidence that this case was about white racism. He also cites crazy e-mails that he and other faculty members have received.

His argument seems to be the old refrain: blacks cannot succeed until every vestige of racism is erased from the earth. If any white person anywhere utters a derogatory phrase about any black, all blacks are condemned to failure. In my youth, I was taught that I was expected to succeed despite the efforts of others to derail me. Why are blacks so damned sensitive that they can't do the same? Are blacks just incapable of standing up to a rowdy, tough public arena? You sure wouldn't know that from watching their performance in basketball and football.

The remainder of Piot's article argues that KC is a shill for the right wing of the Republican Party and David Horowitz. Piot also argues that KC is getting even for the tenure despite at Brooklyn.

There is some truth here, although I don't think that that truth matters much. KC's motivation, I think, has to arise partly from the fight at Brooklyn. And, why not? That fight must have revealed to KC the depth of the rot in liberal academia. And, I think that one day we will see KC in the ranks of the Republic Party.

KC, as you can see if you read this blog as a whole, is decidedly fearful of advocating bluntly and forcefully for white men. In the political era of "diversity" every group except for white men is supposed to fight like mad for its share of the pie. White men are supposed to step back politely and let women, blacks and gays have the pie.

The Republican Party has become, de factor, the party that represents white hetero men. I vote Republican for precisely that reason. I vote for my self interest. Not that the Republicans do a great job of it.

White hetero men have the same rights as every other constituency. The platform of the Democratic Party is simple... women, blacks and gays get first crack at everything. White hetero men are supposed to pick up the crumbs.

One day, I think, Professor Johnson will come over to the side of the Republicans. It's nice, Professor, that you were able to play the game so cleverly and succeed as an individual. When will you do as your opponents do and advocate the rights of your own identity group? The vast majority of white hetero men are not as clever as you are at playing the diversity game against itself. They need your help.

It's an all-out war for swag. I'm tired of sensitive, clever and responsible white hetero men giving away the farm. When will you fight for your own side, Professor Johnson, just like everybody else? Your enemies place you squarely in the camp of your identity group, no matter how many times you plead that you are just a disinterested warrior for justice.

The good Stalinists of Duke and elsewhere remind us of "Uncle Joe's" (alleged) comment:

"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope."

Now it is the universities where revolution is being fomented, where capitalists money is being used against the capitalists themselves, where the rope for the noose is being woven. Some, finally, are waking up to that reality.

:::::::::::::::::

In this case - (the Hoax et al) -the MSM press was a partner. To quote Kruschev: "The press is our chief ideological weapon." (thinkexist.com)

:::::::::::::::::::

Racial and gender animus is being manufactured in our own universities against us, in a time when the black middle and upper-classes are growing, as are those of the other "oppressed" people in the United States. it is such a strong irony that people like Baker and Fared would throw a rising class under the wheels of their ideology.

Stalin would be proud of Grant and Kathy and Wahneema and lately, professor Kasibhatla; Krushchev would compare Grade Gremlin Curtis to Stalin:

Kruschev: "Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his (own) viewpoint, and the correctness of his (own) position, was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation." (Thinkexist.com)

::::::::::::::::::::::

It is no wonder that so many of the Duke Faculty stayed silent: they feared the cudgel. Some are beginning to find their voices, however. More need to find their courage, or watch as the walls tumble.

The circular nature of citations, and other events, are more commonly referred to as the cummulative advantage. It may be positive or negative.

The MSM will continue to create a negative cummulative advantage utilizing quotes form "authorities" such as Burness or Baker. The press will normalize and misrepresent errors depending upon cumulative quotes used by others.

The Klan of 88 may receive citations, though they are from dubious publications.

You have a brilliant idea, what about two fantasy teams? The Wonders vs. The G88ersWe just have to pick the players, and set the rules of engagement. Of course we have to remember the G88ers may be against competitive sports. Not to worry, we won’t wear helmets.

reading the comments on the Duke Chronicle webpage to the letter section has been very informative. Having someone come out of the group88 and state an opinion has brought out lots of letters from Duke students. Many are asking for more comments. However there is a reluctance to comment or respond on the issues by the involved faculty. It is like the code of omerta. maybe the g88 should be referred to as the Pianos.

"And, I think that one day we will see KC in the ranks of the Republic[an] Party."

I don't think that will happen. Both parties are so polarized based on "hot button" issues that those firmly entrenched can not easily switch parties. As a pro-life democrat, I've had to abandon my party because of life issues (not just abortion), but that does not mean I identify as a republican or with the GOP (in my State, most republicans support capital punishment and stem cell research). If there is a prediction to be made about KC it is that he will find himself, like many, as an independent voter.

To "shouting Thomas" - As an observer, it has been especially useful in the last year that (while not completely) DIW has been more or less free from appeals to partisan political views from one side or the other. Prosecutorial misconduct, a rush to judgment by ideologues, and the misuse of power (by media, tenured professors, etc.) are behaviors to be deplored no matter what your political stripe. And it is a fact, historically, that these travesties have been visited far more frequently on the "under privileged." I dispute your characterization of Democratic Party positions, just as I do not believe that all Republicans wish to return society to the economic savagery of bygone, 19th century days. (That's all to say on it, because this blog is at its best when it keeps its eye the ball.) I just hope the appeals to reason that have so distinguished this blog don't get lost in what seems to be a marked increase in politically partisan shouting.

It would seem Duke agreed the Newsday "night and day" article violated the agreement; because a day of two after it came out, Burness issued a statement that his opinions do not reflect that of Duke as a whole. That is BS because the man is "Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations" which means it's his job to speak for Duke. Also, why is the reporter interviewing him in the first place if it wasn't understood that he was Duke's official spokesman? Perhaps the reporter just wanted the opinion of a spokesman for the overweight and middle-aged? Also Burness' "retraction" did not effectively mitigate damage done by the article. It is highly probable more people read the article than noticed the "retraction." I was previously unaware that Pressler's settlement actually occured *before* the "night and day" article. Burness is not only a sleaze. He is also highly incompetant. He knew there was an agreement to stop publicly scapegoating Pressler; and he shot off his big, fat arrogant mouth anyway.Then several months later Brodhead issues an apology which basically acknowledges they did wrong but also seems to claim that Duke is not the cause of any quantifiable damage to anyone. There's only talk of possible emotional strife in "failing to reach out" to families of the players. Of the Gang, DUKE's mistake was only that it did not make it clear that the professors do not speak for DUKE. Of course, Brodhead's apology did not include Pressler because it is obvious that DUKE is the primary source of all of Pressler's very quantifiable damages. So DUKE is innocent because the professors don't speak for DUKE, the "Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations," does not speak for DUKE, and President Brodhead does not speak for DUKE. If that's the line they are going to take, then none of these people should be working for DUKE.

Everything these people do is so incestuous. Can the city of Durham do nothing without money coming from Duke? No wonder they seemed joined at the hip during the railroading of the lacrosse players.

Brodhead might as well have given his "apology" on a podium in downtown Durham.

The other "booster", Julius Verwoerdt--a Dutchman from Amsterdam--moved his family here decades ago to start the once-magic Hotel Europa in Chapel Hill....as he also bought up some of Durham with his millions.

Yet, when he bought so many buildings in downtown Durham, I'm sure he demanded a sweet deal. He's one of the tightest people I have ever met.

Now I know what "going Dutch" means. LOL!!!

I didn't even know he and his family still lived in the Triangle. And.....as usual, he also has ties to Duke.

*****************************************

Early downtown boosters honored

This may sound like rank boosterism, but if it does, so be it. We have no hesitation about trumpeting the news reported at Thursday's annual meeting of Downtown Durham Inc. In fact, there is so much genuine good news emanating from downtown these days that it would wrong not to revel in it a bit. It wasn't so long ago when downtown boosters were hard to find.

It was a different story Thursday, as DDI President Bill Kalkhof, speaking to an audience of about 300, handed out 11 awards to entrepreneurs, individuals and institutions for their contributions to downtown. As Kalkhof recalled, in the early years of DDI (formed in 1993), it was tricky to find anyone worthy of getting an award. Now it's difficult to winnow the field of deserving candidates. To get a sense of how much is happening downtown, in the past fiscal year alone, $110 million has been invested in the area.

Kalkhof presented two "visionary awards," both of which were well-deserved. The first went to Duke University, which was a good reminder that Duke was one of the essential players that made downtown's rebirth possible. Duke gave the American Tobacco renovation a major boost by signing on as one of its original anchor tenants. Duke now has an astounding 350,000 square feet of office space downtown. And Duke's significant financial contribution to the performing arts theater now under construction also allowed it to move forward.

The other visionary honored was Julius Verwoerdt, who was one of a small handful of early downtown boosters. In the 1980s, Verwoerdt promoted converting Durham's tobacco warehouses into mixed-use facilities. It must be a thrill for him to see that vision now becoming a reality.

A lot of dreams are being realized downtown. Other award winners were Phase II of the American Tobacco Project, businesses Motricity and Hamilton Hill Jewelry, Restaurants Rue Cler and Alivia's Durham Bistro, the Kress building and the new Durham Farmer's Market. The Georges Rousse Public Art Project also received a well-deserved honor, and Ken Lile was named outstanding board member.

They all deserve congratulations for adding their energy and creativity to the growing ranks of Durham boosters, and for giving us all a reason to cheer.

I am a "white hetero man" who doesn't view the world through a gender-and-race "identity group" lens. I suspect there are a a number of "us" in D-i-W's readership.

At the heart of the matter is the contrast between the goals of "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome". Being old enough to have grown up at a time when pro-white-male racism and sexism were commonplaces, I'm not quick to pooh-pooh all claims of discrimination by oppressed or formerly-oppressed groups.

But acknowledging that, sadly, we do not yet inhabit the best of all possible worlds provides us with no guidance about how to choose between opportunity and outcome in any given circumstance.

My "identity group" isn't "white males like me." It's "Americans of whatever gender or color who subscribe to the Enlightenment, who believe in the virtues of our Constitution and the market economy, who celebrate what our civilization has gotten right, and who acknowledge that many injustices still require redress."

"That's all to say on it, because this blog is at its best when it keeps its eye the ball."

Yes, that's all we are allowed to say......AFTER you have had yours.

No room for illumination? No room for the actual facts of the matter?

You don't work for Duke, do you? :>)

Just as most people involved in this case--including the dah-ling man Joe Cheshire--tried to steer away from the more uncomfortable features, the spine of the case and the one bombastic element which fueled this case was race.

The fact that the Democratic Party's constituency of over 90% of the black community demanded a pound of white affluent flesh, and/or just sat back and enjoyed the ride....knowing the facts against guilt were so obvious.....

.......renders the often-voiced claim that all talk of politics be avoided to be a kind of injustice in and of itself.

We do need to talk about the truth of what actually happened.

If the extreme left agenda did not exist and did not require constant cultivation, this case would have never been.

It's best to admit that what happened to Reade, Collin, and David is on the same level as the horrific KKK days of yore--in a different costume. They used to try to get their pound of flesh as well...regardless of guilt or innocence.

Very well stated. Let's not lose sight of "... the Enlightenment, ... the virtues of our Constitution and the market economy, ... what our civilization has gotten right, and ...[the fact] that many injustices still require redress."

The colors of people, Black or White or Yellow, do not fit in an analysis predicated on those thoughts. The only colors that fit are the red, white and blue of all that has preceeded.

To: Shouting Thomas: ("when will you do as your opponents do, and advocate the rights of your own identity group"?)

What is KC's identity group?

From here, he appears to belong to the set of those individuals who still believe that facts and reason are important to argument. Identity politics are closer to faith based religion (more power, by the way, to those with a faith based religion).

That is, you start with your articles of faith (blacks and women are victimized by white males) and draw all conclusions from your faith. However, evidence that blacks and women are not victimized by white males is ignored, because it conflicts with the faith.

Thus, we get the Duke Lacrosse "social disaster". It was, of course, ironically, a true social disaster.

It is from identity politics that we get "white innocence is black guilt", and dozens of equally absurd conclusions. Facts may tell us that some whites are innocent, some whites are guilty, some blacks are innocent, and some blacks are guilty. Since facts conflict with the articles of faith, facts are ignored.

KC can speak for himself as to why he does not adopt identity politics.

If he did, it would be a betrayal of something better. None of us could justify our time following the issues of the DIW blog if all we found here were identity politics.

What is wrong with identity politics? For starters, identity politics are at the heart of much of the world's suffering.

Centuries long identity-based blood feuds in southeast europe have given us the word "balkenization" to describe the bitter fragmentation of peoples along identity lines. Shiites and Sunnis have been at each others throats for centuries because of identity politics. The story of the Hatfields and McCoys (both in truth and in legend) is the story of identity politics.

The reason to fight identity politics, and not to practice it, is that there is something better in life than "fighting for swag".

While contemplating this prim little lie--this Piot set of fantasies--I thought again of the recent article in the N&O by J. Peder Zane on hypocrisy in which Bill Chafe was quoted so very self-righteously.

A few days after that article, an astute and articulate reader sent in a letter chastising Chafe...much as he was skewered inside Wonderland.

Piot is getting the same treatment for his deliberate deception and obvious lies from many people who have read it.

(At least, however, he can write.)

Duke University is really taking a beating as many of the Gang of 88 have been illuminated and laughed at--because of their own words and their own misrepresentations.

There's a constantly repeated question for Duke and Brodhead which they fail to answer.

It's like that movie (thriller) "Deception" with Goldie Hawn. There was a scene where a parent was incapable of asserting any kind of authority over his own child and Hawn was in the midst of a life and death situation to get a valuable necklace back which the child had accidentally been given as a toy.

I was attracted to this blog by KC's dedication to facts and fidelity in reporting. I doubt if KC and I agree on much politically--but we both agree on core principles, i.e.innocent until proven guilty, devotion to proper process, deriving conclusions from facts, modifying theory in the face of conflicting evidence. These are not political issues--they represent the foundations of our society.--Buddy

Follow up to Debrah (If the extreme left agenda ... etc.) and Shouting Thomas

I think Jim in San Diego is spot on.

The Innocence Project has 208 case profiles up as of today of wrongly convicted "individuals," White, Hispanic, Black (tho the majority are Black). See, http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.phpSee also, Center on Wrongful Convictions at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/

Among the saddest events in this sordid affair is the point made in UPI about how the Duke case was a golden opportunity lost for all people to rally around these issues. The NAACP behaved despicably to be sure. But I assert that political rants from the Republican right in this blog are no better.

There's a special place in Hades both for Rush and Nancy Grace ... I would have thought that any reasonable person should want to resist the temptation to join them.

Your thinking is exactly right. Having an accomplice send threatening e-mails, and then waving them in front of the media, is an old ploy. When I held a government job, any kind of threatening mail went immediately to the attorneys. It was the same for even mild hate messages. We were well versed on the legalities of handling public information. I was on a trial witness list for months because of a threatening letter sent to a public official. If the Gang of 88 want to use their threatening e-mails, for other than fodder, they should be verified. That is if my experience holds true for those at Duke. Those threatening e-mails are in the hands of the Duke attorneys. Industry experts advised us to publish and use both, to and from, on each e-mail, for legal reasons. Only a fool would go that route in my opinion.

Sending one's self emails (threatening and so forth) is a lot easier than hanging a noose from one's own tree, sending a self-adressed hate-letter, defacing one's own car with racial epithets or scrawling whatever racial epithets Tawana Brawley scribbled on her own person.

Seems like there's more self-sent, self-inflicted stuff these days than the genuine article.

Such as...GWU's "hate-filled fliers," posted by leftist students who objected to a forum about Islamic fundamentalism, manufactured in order to make it look like the conservative group holding the forum was somehow a group of fascists.

Funny. Not really. Sick. I won't say that professors haven't gotten vile emails - considering the vile poster-of-whom-we-do-not-speak - but I think they take pleasure in their alleged victimhood. Sainthood of the religion of the 88 (as MOO Gregory calls it, "Correctology") - requires that one become a Marshmallow Martyr (not a real one, of course.)

Even after the cases are hand selected to weed out the clearly guilty, only 23% are exonerated, while some 16% are inconclusive. Ignoring the very small number of false negatives, that suggests that a large majority of the cases that look good initially actually end up confirming the guilt of the convicted. (We can only assume that the inconclusive cases would turn out to have roughly the same proportion of exonerated individuals).

"The reason to fight identity politics, and not to practice it, is that there is something better in life than "fighting for swag"."

Well... no, there isn't.

Note that I didn't say anything about using the justice system for revenge. My respondents just made that up.

Duke's administration has not ceased employing racial and sexual quotas in its hiring. Nor has it ceased applying a political litmus test in its hiring. Every university in the country employs racial and sexual quotas. Every corporation in the country swears by "diversity"... a code word for a quota system.

White hetero men are the only group without a club in this fight.

This fight at Duke really was not joined because of the issues involved in this case. Piot is right. KC came to this case in reaction to his experience of being blackballed by the left's quota system.

Nobody is interested in this case because of the three defendants. The public attention surrounding this case resulted entirely from the war over the racial and sexual spoils system. Duke's faculty saw the conviction of these three boys as a weapon of enforcement in the racial and sexual quota system. They saw it clearly as a means of continuing to use a political litmus test in hiring.

Certainly, this particular case should be judged on its merits in court.

I suspect many of my respondents are hetero white men. Such men are the most fair minded people in this nation. And this has become our weakness. The Democratic Party is the enforcer of the quota systems.

I'm tired of reading about what an independent, fair minded creature is KC. I really don't care. Who's going to stand up for white hetero men in the fight over swag? I'm calling on KC to abandon the fair minded politics and fight for his kind. Cease the crap about independent Democrats and Obama. These are the enforcers of the quota systems.

You've got the job you want, KC, because you are uniquely clever and gifted in fighting the quota systems. Others are not. Illiterates are drawing six figure salaries as literature professors at Duke. They took the places of qualified hetero white men.

No, there is nothing so important as the fight over swag. I'm fed up with watching my kind screwed over in employment and admissions to educational institutions. As I said, Republicans are only marginally better than Democratics in this respect. But, that does matter for something.

The time has come for white hetero men to fight like mad dogs (just like their opponents) for their share of the swag. There is nothing more important. Join the Republican Party, KC, and do your part to force the issue.

This blog has not attracted such a huge audience because people are concerned about whether justice prevails in individual cases. The audience is here, I am quite certain, because we are fed up with a sexual and racial quota system that deliberately punishes white hetero men, and an educational system that enforces a political litmus test in its hiring.

"But I assert that political rants from the Republican right in this blog are no better.

There's a special place in Hades both for Rush and Nancy Grace ..."

::

I thought we had a consensus that party politics is better left to other blogs. In any case, to mention Rush Limbaugh in the same breath with Nancy Grace boggles the mind... and detracts from your other points well taken.

In 1943, the Supreme Court, affirming the right of Jehovah's Witnesses children to refuse to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag in schools, declared: "No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." Today that principle is routinely traduced, coast to coast, by officials who are petty in several senses.

It's important to be clear about what you can see and what you cannot.We know that Pressler filed suit in October and that Burness disparagement of him occurred in April. While lawsuits take time, this is too long to be the proximate cause of the suit. Something else happened that triggered Pressler to file. It's possible that the latest round from Coleman et al is the triggering event. More likely, there is some event from the faculty or administration at Duke that triggered the suit. It is very likely that Pressler's lawyers contacted Broadhead in advance of the suit and gave them time to address the issue. Broadhead either did not respond or his actions were inadequate for Pressler.Unless Broadhead takes aggressive action to resolve Pressler's concerns there is going to be a trial. With the admission already in the settlement agreement that Duke fired Pressler "without cause", it seems that this suit will only hear evidence for the purpose of determining the size of the award.Duke in it's public statements has sounded nearly desperate to keep the settlement agreement in place. No wonder.Any thoughts on the nature of the triggering event for this suit? What angered Pressler?

Well Thomas, the republicans are willing to sacrifice white males but for different reasons. The dems think white males should be sacrificed due to their old sins of being horrible oppressors and the republicans see white males as needing to be sacrificed because that is their duty. Provide and protect and all that. In the US white men have no political party that supports their interests. The dems see them as villains and the repubs see them as disposable producers.

Are you people conscious??? Are you aware of what is happening to our University??? Do you really think the law suits and dammage to our image and reputation are gonna go away so brodhead and his sucklings can "move on"??? Folks, CLEAN HOUSE....PLEASE!!!!!!!

It seems that every word of Piot's article is a lie including all the ands, buts, and thes. But my real question is about his contention here:

"The ad grew out of a teach-in organized by faculty in Duke’s (then) Program in African and African American Studies "

I am aware that there was a "teach-in" after, but I wonder, Was there actually such a "teach-in" before the ad? . This seems like an easy fact to check, but I don't know how to do it. If there wasn't, then this fact should, to turn a phrase, drive the stake through Piot's latest panoply of prevarications.

"I have a friend in DC that says,"D-I-W is making history, and will become the benchmark for other bloggers following cases and trials." He said, "KC, and his pack, give scoundrels no place to hide." Isn't that interesting?"

Hey Shouting Thomas, shout for yourself! I am a faithful blog reader because I want to see justice done. Do you think Crystal Mangum was thinking of racial and sexual quotas when she first uttered her lies? Get a grip! "Quite certain" your butt! Leave your quota politics out of this blog. Despite everything you whine about, white males still rule America, so just shut up. Really, just shut up!

I have a Jewish friend who, whenever he sees something about Jewish conspiracies run the world, starts ranting about how the bastards cut him out, and he wants his share already.

It may be that a lot of the people with power are white, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a lot of white people have power - go learn about the hazards reasoning from the contrapositive, or better yet Bayes' Theorem, which covers the equivalent error commonly made with aggregate data.

If you're not related to the Bushes or Gores or Heinz-Kerrys or Kennedys, being white is not a career advantage.

"Do you think Crystal Mangum was thinking of racial and sexual quotas when she first uttered her lies?"

I think she knew that under certain circumstances black people can get away with stuff white people wouldn't.

Unlike Shouting Thomas I don't want to play the identity politics game, I want to eliminate it. I don't believe most minority goup members really like it either, it's just the professional "Xxx Community Leaders" who profit.

Identifying the specitic harms is one way of getting rid of the identity politics game. Threatening "if you keep it up, we're going to start playing seriously too" is another.

Indeed 730. I am a white hetero man who cares about this case because of the three defendants and who does not think there is a Vast Conspiracy to destroy white hetero men everywhere. Whether or not white males still "rule" America, I categorically reject the racial narratives of people like Shouting Thomas just as I do of those among the G88 and elsewhere who made this case into their own racial narrative.

Yeah Debrah, such a brave commitment to free speech you have - banning discussion of me by commenters on your blog while simultaneously criticizing me and others here for restricting your free speech in the comments here.

Okay, guys and gals, back to the Pressler suit...deal? First of all, it is impossible to opine on the merit of the suit without having access to the settlement agreement. Any commentary based on the complaint itself is pure speculation. What I found interesting and somewhat disturbing is that one of the name partners , Don Beskind, in Pressler's law firm is also a Senior Lecturing Fellow at the Duke Law School. Beskind teaches clinical courses in trial practice. His name is not on the pleadings, but that is of little consequence from a conflict of interest standpoint. Some interesting stuff here. Beskind is getting a paycheck from the very University his firm is suing. Moreover, I believe that Jim Coleman will very likely be a key witness on the merits of Pressler's claims (b/c of his apparent vindication of Pressler in the Coleman Report) if the suit survives a motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment. Beskind and Coleman run in the same circles, socially and professionally, at the Law School. Have Beskind and Coleman discussed the case and Pressler's potential claims? If so, will Pressler's lawyers be able to go after Coleman in deposition or at trial; or will they lay off b/c of Beskind's relationship with the Law School? Did Coleman and perhaps other members of the Duke Law faculty rovide advice and counsel to the University on Pressler's potential claims against the University? If so, is their participation imputed to all members of the Duke Law faculty for conflicts purposes? How does the Coleman letter trashing KC and Stuart figure in? Hmmm....some very interesting stuff here. Much better than the Debrah vs. Steve thing.

"What I found interesting and somewhat disturbing is that one of the name partners , Don Beskind, in Pressler's law firm is also a Senior Lecturing Fellow at the Duke Law School. Beskind teaches clinical courses in trial practice. His name is not on the pleadings, but that is of little consequence from a conflict of interest standpoint."

Pressler surely knew this when he chose this firm. Maybe he considers Beskin an asset somehow, either in terms of knowing where bodies are buried at Duke or as a possible "back channel" conduit for settlement negotiations, one who won't be dismissed when he says "give up already, the guy's got you dead to rights." Or maybe he just knows Beskin from Duke days, and that's how he picked the firm?

Who represented him in his first suit?

Is "conflict of interest" usually applied to individual lawyers or to an entire firm? If the latter, it could make it very hard for a large law firm (some have dozens of partners and hundreds of lawyers) to ever find a case they can work on!

When I have approached a law firm to represent me (the client), the first thing they do is check conflicts ... to see if any lawyer in the firm has a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict, and the potential client still wants to use that firm and the firm believes that it can handle the conflict and still maintain all ethical obligations to both parties, then the firm approaches the potential adversary (or adversary's counsel) and asks if they would waive conflicts. If the potential adversary is agreeable to providing a waiver relating to the conflicts of interest, then the law firm can be retained by the client.

To Anonymous who writes there is "no doubt that the vast majority of people behind bars are guilty."

I hope I haven't misunderstood you. Does anyone seriously believe the 208 people who have been falsely charged, falsely tried, falsely convicted, sent to jail, and then been exonerated and released (most with compensation), as the Innocence Project profiles document, are somehow less worthy of outrage at a corrupt system and less of a cause for reform than the case of the Duke lax players.

Is there some distinction to be made about the damage that has been done to the lives of all these individuals?

Though it may be that "most" people behind bars are guilty, isn't the corruption of justice the most, certainly not the only, noxious aspect of the Duke case and these 208 documented cases as well?

I only wanted to state my view, as the blogged got wrapped around the axle on politics and race, that a central point risked being obscured.

My main point was that KC has allowed this to be said about me because he can get a dig at me through someone else.

That was his message to me.

10/15/07 9:41 AM

I'm sure KC wouldn't do this. Who could not love the Divah? Yes, it's true this was an apparent violation of his recently-stated policy on anonymous, naked, ad homs, but I'm sure it was just an oversight. KC doesn't have a history of letting others make his points for him.

Hmmm...so KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor's book is a number 1 bestseller in the areas of Law, Rape, and Legal History on Amazon.com and has a 5 star average on the same site...While Piot's publication is in some obscure journal for black anthropologists...

Your comment is taken under advisement; however, even though this is a small matter.....I'm sure you, of all people, can appreciate the fact that the essence of everything is in the details.

I was relaying what I had read at LS to R. Phelan in jest. Then it was repeated back on this forum directly as an ad hominem.

If I thought it would go through, I would give you more information on the blog from where this was allowed. The very people who run the place have a sleazy agenda.

The moment I posted something over there, I was attacked. LOL! And no moderation whatsoever.

LS posted a whole segment on KC's award and there were several really negative comments posted about him.

I came in and countered with my thoughts which were glowing praise, as usual.

Those negative comments about KC were quickly removed by some clown called "Baldo"; however, when I inquired about the moderation after being called "douche" and after someone was using the most misogynistic and racist comments about CGM--we all know what kind of person she is, but KC would never allow those kinds of comments--none of them were deleted.

LS is a sleazy place...run by a clique who wanted only one side of the Durham story told.

Personally, I have no real interest in this except for the fact that Durham has been a sleazy place for a long time and anyone who has been associated with Nifong and the PACs over there is nothing but corrupt.

Read the papers and see who is supporting the same old mayor.

I don't have to remind you about the duplicitous James Coleman, either.

UPI is a great book.....but not because of the sleazy characters one had to work with to get the story.

In spite of it.

On the website FODU back in 2006, I cautioned everyone about calling these people "heroes"...and was attacked. It seems everyone wants or needs to believe in them.

Wonder how those people are feeling now. Ha!

What I have posted here many times about KC was sincere, although I use dramatic license and a bit of melodrama because that's who I am.

Some very bland and by-the-book handwringers around here have criticized my style...and most of the time I enjoy it.....because it's fun to shake things up.

However, that shameless "anonymous" person above was nothing less than hate-filled.

Your buddy "inman" has posted similar things which is unfortunate....since a few of you wish to present yourselves as "decent" and "respectable".

Do you really think that KC would have allowed this discussion if that post was just an "oversight"?

Put on your thinking cap!

I could be more irritated by it than I am....however, I just came from my bedroom where I had been staring into my antique iron Roman rose mirror.......contemplating Diva-dom......and thinking that it really should be against the law to be this good-looking......

This Duke case and life in America has EVERYTHING to do with race. I am a white hetero male, when this case first appeared I wanted the Duke boys to HANG. But the truth surfaced, and as an intelligent human I had to change my outlook. On the other hand the majority of blacks still wanted the Duke boys to hang for past crimes. ATTENTION! Is that not racially prejudiced? Yes, it is very racially prejudiced.

The Dems continue to hate the white hetero male. Dean continues to preach to the blacks that whites owe the blacks for past crimes like slavery. Deans’ family probably had slaves, but my family didn’t. I wish he would shut his pie hole when speaking for all whites.

MLK wanted to do away with race. Just hire by ability, nothing else. I agreed with what he had to say. So I ignored race, and helped everyone. But race never went away. The Dems use it as a vote getter. Dems throw the blacks a bone at the white males’ expense. Nifong is the poster child for that vote getter.

When I vote, I choose the least evil politician. Both major parties are corrupt, but in different traditions. Dems are out to chastise the white hetero male by using hiring quotas. Repubs are evil for not stopping these unconstitutional hiring quotas. But since the Dems created the undemocratic hiring quotas, I consider them: MOST EVIL. I will never vote for a white male democrat. The white male democrat is the oxymoron.

I lost jobs to hiring quotas, man that hurts. Anybody out there who has white male children should be very disturbed by this. It will only get worse.

Did I mention I hate my grandparents for coming to America? I do, I really do.

"White hetero men have the same rights as every other constituency. The platform of the Democratic Party is simple... women, blacks and gays get first crack at everything. White hetero men are supposed to pick up the crumbs."

As an "old white guy" I could not agree more. Several years ago I took a job with a state agency in a state the Democrat Party has had a death grip on literally for generations.

I was amazed to see race and gender politics so up close and personal in action, with top jobs going to politically connected race and gender buffoons. One such blowhard approached me for advice on 9/11/02 about a "penniless" applicant of dubious background from our state looking for free tuition to attend a flight school in Florida. I frankly thought his question was a setup, and incredulously asked the dope, "Do you know what today is?" He didn't have a clue.

The agency I worked for was quite PC, with one female advancing to an upper tier position shortly after complaining that "since she didn't have a penis, she was not advancing in the ranks..." Her words were like rocket fuel, and she is now viewed as a legend there, having opened the door for dozens of other coworkers similarly unendowed.

There were two AA men there, one approaching retirement age who routinely fell asleep after lunch, and who also worked for a tax prep firm part time at night. It was not unusual for him to prepare tax returns for his night job while at the office, in between assignments, of course. The other AA male was a young, boisterous dimwit, who some female supervisors and co-workers complained about his belligerence and poor work product without consequence. I traveled by train with him once to attend a training course, and was embarrassed by the way he conducted himself, with annoying singing and childish banter to whoever would listen. Must be nice to work where you're "bullet-proof". Life be good!

Then of course there was the fast-rising (ahem) unmarried male manager who was the butt of behind the back jokes and interagency faxes from male and female subordinates alike. He had an ongoing, high profile feud with a male senior manager, and would turn red with rage whenever an issue came up involving that other manager. While easily manipulated for advancement by female subordinates who absolutely loathed him, he had no tolerance for older males of greater or lesser rank, and I was one of the latter. Long story short, his constant hissy-fits helped drive the senior manager to take a lesser position in another department, and had myself and two other subordinates fired or who resigned rather than work with him. In my case, he lied about a meeting that never took place, where he claimed to have given instructions that I subsequently disobeyed. I made calls to 2 attorneys right away, but got a job before they returned my calls, and I never went further with it. I felt that in my state, I had no chance of prevailing, since it was not really "about the truth".

I later heard from a senior manager in that department who said that had I been working for him at the time, I would still be working there. I had known the department head on a first name basis prior to joining that department, and made the mistake of telling him during my job interview of some volunteer work I had done for the local Republican Party. I had been fatally misinformed prior to that interview that the dept head was a former Republican turned Democrat. I am convinced that information contributed to my firing once the ms. manager approached him with the phantom meeting lie.

I have been a constant reader and poster on DIW almost from inception, sometimes anonymous, sometimes not, and in light of my own experience with race and gender politics, have been not only outraged by the Lacrosse Burning & Grouip of 88, but also vindicated by the truth that ultimately emerged and the still-emerging consequences of same.

KC, you're the BEST. And a hearty shout out to a real patriot, Shouting Thomas.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review